We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Bad little piggie

Marketing Intelligence applied to register the trade mark SAVE MY BACON for a wide range of financial, business, and education services in Classes 35, 36, and 41. The application was opposed by Save My Bacon Ltd, a company that had operated in New Zealand since 2009 under the trade mark SAVE MY BACON.

There was a long-standing history between the applicant and opponent, with a prominent member of the applicant being a former partner of the opponent. The evidence led by both sides was considering by the Hearing Officer to be hearsay at best, but in the circumstances that was not sufficient for it to not be considered relevant to the determination of this matter.

The evidence played out the past dealings between each side, including the applicant’s past dealings in purchasing domain names for sale to third party entities. The applicant stated its intention to use the trade mark and domain name savemybacon.com.au for the purposes of an insurance business (rather than the money lending business already established by the opponent in New Zealand).

After considering the assertions made by both sides, the Hearing Officer was left to determine whether ‘a reasonable person standing in the Applicant’s shoes know that they ought not to apply for the registration of the Trade Mark? On the evidence, I find that question can only be answered in the affirmative’.

Compare jurisdictions:Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

"I use the newsfeeds to follow legislative changes and industry trends relevant to my division. I find the articles to be of a good quality and the topics are well researched and presented in a very user-friendly format."